Please sir, may I have some more

I never understood how Don Roberts made the decision when to refresh his website and start on a “clean slate” so to speak.   Was it ten posts?  a weeks worth?  a gut feel?   It will always remain an Alameda mystery, like the Burrito tunnel.

Anyway, this particular post (and subsequent response) caught my attention.   Have you ever noticed that when Don doesn’t agree with a response letter to something he’s already posted he will put it below the first letter, but if he does agree with it he’ll put it above the initial letter.   But I digress.   The first letter was from Alamedan Lon Elledge who, after a visit to Mississippi , understood why AUSD is in the financial bind that it currently is in.  That’s right folks, it’s not what you would think such as items like fiscal mismanagement or me too clauses or unfunded mandates or reduced revenues from the state.  No, it’s…

Summer lunch programs.

About last LWV meeting…

Before word starts circulating around the Alameda grapevine in that awful form of telephone that ends up attributing statements to someone that they didn’t say, here’s the nutshellish version.   For those that haven’t ended up on the tail end of e-mail forwards or Google alerts, essentially rumors have circulated that the City Council is going to be modifying the Alameda Point Initiative to get it on the November ballot.

So this part Saturday while the rest of us was out enjoying (or sweating in) the heat of summer, the Alameda League of Women Voters were cooped up inside Otaez for its annual meeting.   One of the things that they were scheduled to discuss was the Alameda Point Initiative and what position, if any, the League should take on the issue.  The recommendation that the subcommittee came up with and that was adopted by the League Board — because at the time they adopted it in May the assumption was the the Initiative would be submitted for the November 2009 election — was to not take a position on the issue because there would not be sufficient time to review the Initiative and put it to a vote for the larger membership.    Rather the subcommittee made a recommendation to make a focused educational effort by providing analysis of the Initiative, host public meetings, etc…   Basically to do what the League is known for doing which is to provide information in a non partisan manner.

In Memoriam

Earlier this week, Alamedan Mary Kenney passed away.  

I had the honor of sitting on the Board of the Alameda Free Library Foundation with Mary and there were several things that struck me about Mary from the limited time that I knew her.   She was so very helpful in any and every task.   She had a deliciously spunky temperament .   And she had a warm and kind heart.

Prior to her death, the Alameda 4th of July Parade Committee had elected her to be Grand Marshal at this year’s parade for all of her selfless and tireless contributions to the community.  And she was awarded the “Citizen of the Year” award, which she graciously said to the Alameda Journal:

“It was a pleasant surprise…I never even considered myself a candidate for something like this. I am very appreciative.”

 Her presence, leadership, and spirit will be missed.

There will be a memorial service for Mary on Monday.  Below is a photo taken recently of Mary and her oldest granddaughter.

 

And I would be remiss not to at least mention this, his music has had an impact on so many people.  He may be gone, but his music will live on:

Bulbs and racks

The bulb-outs in front of the Alameda Theatre are scheduled to be done early next month as is the installation of the bike racks in parking lot “C.”   Can we please name this lot something more creative?   How about we sell off naming rights to public lots in order to raise some money in Alameda.  It will be like Little League Sponsorship.   We could have the Tutttimelon lot. 

So basically with the majority of the bicycle parking going across from what will probably be the primary destination for the bicycle parkers, we’ll start seeing a lot more jaywalkers.   And we’ll see how diligent the police are about ticketing those jaywalkers, because, after all, that was the solution that the Council came up with.   Ticket the jaywalkers!  Hoo Rah!  

Friends with benefits

Did anyone else find it really strange on Alameda Daily News’ Friday post that it talked about how it would be great to have a cushy city job because the top 10 earners made so much money, but then failed to mention from which department the top 10 salaries came from:

 

It sort of just hangs there allowing folks to make assumptions about who are these people making that much money in the City.   Possibly bringing up visions of fat bureaucrats sucking away at the the money of the City and sitting around doing nothing. 

Bye car

A recent article in the Chicago Sun-Times referenced a study by the Center for Neighborhood Technology, which has done a lot of neat GIS work around metro areas, about greenhouse gas emissions and how people that live in cities have a much smaller carbon footprint than those that do not.   This is, of course, if one measures not how much CO2 is emitted per acre, but rather how much per household.  Of course if the measurement is per acre than cities are always going to be viewed as the big sinner since the density of people would multiple the emissions exponetially.   However, when examined on a per household basis, the more sprawly, the more emissions per household, the less “green” all those miles of turf actually seem.

And just to circle back, this is actually the argument that is made often by Harvard economist Edward Glaeser who often waxes poetically about how his beloved Manhattan skyscrapers are truly good for the environment.

Back to L.A.

Apparently the LA Times Editorial board failed to actually read through the Safe Schools Curriculum itself and instead, relied on the many press releases and/or conservative editorials on the issue in which to get their information.  In fact, I find it odd that the LA Times found the need to weigh in on an issue that hasn’t been discussed at all in their own paper, but I am at least gratified that the LA Times Editorial Board at least knew the distinction between Alameda, the City, as opposed to Alameda, the County, unlike this woman.

Talk about taking editorial liberties with what the reality is.   Here is where is breaks down for me, the LA Times, of course, has to make the requisite disclaimer that they are actually against bullying — I mean, who isn’t — but right off the bat they begin obfuscating the truth:

It’s high time that schools took anti-bullying measures more seriously. We just never thought that would include requiring fifth-graders to recite the meaning of each letter in LGBT…

Really, LA Times Editorial Board?  

Growing smartly

One of the critiques of the SunCal plan that I have seen is the larger macro argument that new urbanism, smart growth, transit oriented development, walkable communities, or insert your favorite trendy catchphrase here just doesn’t exist in the “real world.”  That it is some pie in the sky notion developed by academic planners who have nothing better to do than the imagine in their heads and on their sketch pads what a better city would look like, but unfortunately have no “real world” application.    And because it doesn’t work or doesn’t exist or doesn’t have a proven examples, it won’t work in the special bubble that is Alameda.

Internal conflict

It’s taken me a while to get around to writing about the fire on Bay Farm because it’s such a delicate subject and when that is combined with the whole initiative the Firefighters want to place on the ballot even though our budget is in a precarious state, I wanted to wait for a few more details.    And now given that there was a second fire in Alameda in less than a week — I always had the feeling that structure fires were pretty few and far between — the Fire Department issues has jumped up in prominence.

At Tuesday night’s City Council meeting, the Fire Chief gave a run down of what all went down.  According to the Fire Chief for a normal response, this is what type of equipment and staff would be dispatched:

• Three Engines
• Two Trucks
• One Ambulance
• One Battalion Chief
• 18 staff on site

The response that night:

• Four Engines (because one truck was busy)
• Two trucks (the busy truck became available)
• AMR dispatched (because ambulance was busy)
• One Battalion Chief
• 21 staff on site

Election speculation

The group Protect the Point* has put out a press release asking us all to ignore the “spin from the developer and the supporters of this initiative” and instead look at the facts of what SunCal delaying submittal of their signatures actually means.    Technically, the reasons outlined by Protect the Point (“potential legal challenges, “stanch, organized community opposition”) aren’t “facts”  but rather assumptions and conjecture about why SunCal decided to wait until 2010 to go to the ballot.

What makes this Protect the Point press release notable is this section which says:

…Because these signatures were gathered for a regularly scheduled election, SunCal would need to start over to call an “early 2010 election” as they stated in their press release. The next possible election after November without gathering signatures to call a special election is June 2010…